First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Gun Rights
27705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / TX
Offline
Posted 9/20/15
The only difference more gun control will accomplish


Focus on the criminal element if you honestly want to make things safer
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 9/20/15 , edited 10/21/15

sundin13 wrote:

Mandatory proficiency and safety training/tests are absolutely nothing like Poll Taxes. They are simply common sense provisions and I have yet to hear a single good argument against them. If your owning of a gun puts other individual's right to life in danger you should not be allowed to own a gun, and individuals carrying guns they do not know how to use puts other people in danger.


You can not use the internet or write a letter until you have gone through our common sense provisions put forth by the all knowing and all seeing government, citizen.

13131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/20/15 , edited 9/20/15

VZ68 wrote:

You can not use the internet or write a letter until you have gone through our common sense provisions put forth by the all knowing and all seeing government, citizen.


That is a false equivalency and not an argument against the provisions I am discussing.


J-POP187 wrote:

The only difference more gun control will accomplish

Focus on the criminal element if you honestly want to make things safer


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

"For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11834986

"A disproportionately high number of 5-14 year olds died from suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths in states and regions where guns were more prevalent."

Just because a "non-criminal" has a gun doesn't necessarily make them better off...
10595 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Rabbit Horse
Offline
Posted 9/20/15
there's a misconception that adding gun control will prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining a gun
that's far from the case.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 9/20/15 , edited 9/20/15

sundin13 wrote:


VZ68 wrote:

You can not use the internet or write a letter until you have gone through our common sense provisions put forth by the all knowing and all seeing government, citizen.


That is a false equivalency and not an argument against the provisions I am discussing.


Negative Ghostrider, a right is a right.

I didn't see this thing called a BILL OF WANTS or a BILL OF NEEDS.

I see a BILL OF RIGHTS.



7413 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / New England, USA
Offline
Posted 9/20/15
I think all adults deserve the right to own firearms if they legally prove themselves worthy of that right. This means simply that I believe if you have any felonious marks on your criminal history you have forfeited that right. If you have any mental/emotional "deficiencies" on your medical record you have forfeited that right due to no fault of your own. Finally, I think the 3rd obligation should be random spot-checks on housing/safety of the weapons. Too many children find a loaded gun sitting in reach and either shoot themselves, a family member or a friend due to their parents neglect of the weapon. There should be strict laws on the safe keeping of the weapons inside any home where children/teens either reside of routinely visit.

Now, as to illegal handguns and weapons, it's actually quite simple. We need stricter penalties for those caught with unlicensed/unregistered weapons. The penalties we have now just aren't strict enough.
13131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/20/15 , edited 9/20/15

VZ68 wrote:

Negative Ghostrider, a right is a right.

I didn't see this thing called a BILL OF WANTS or a BILL OF NEEDS.

I see a BILL OF RIGHTS.


"This is the way it is, therefore it is the way it should always be!"

Great logic there...

Also, I've already presented an argument against that point. First of all, there are already a number of limitations on the ownership of firearms that have been deemed constitutional. Second of all, " If your owning of a gun puts other individual's right to life in danger you should not be allowed to own a gun, and individuals carrying guns they do not know how to use puts other people in danger.". The right to life is the single most fundamental human right there is and should be protected as such. If an individual is not fit to carry a firearm, they are putting the most fundamental human right of others at risk. This is the same reason we don't allow convicted violent felons to carry firearms. Do you contest that also?

Additionally, as the Supreme Court has stated, with rights, come responsibilities. The responsibility of all gun owners is to ensure that they are capable of carrying the weapon and that they are using it safely. If they are not willing to uphold that responsibility, they void their right to carry a weapon.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 9/20/15

sundin13 wrote:


VZ68 wrote:

Negative Ghostrider, a right is a right.

I didn't see this thing called a BILL OF WANTS or a BILL OF NEEDS.

I see a BILL OF RIGHTS.


"This is the way it is, therefore it is the way it should always be!"

Great logic there...

Also, I've already presented an argument against that point. First of all, there are already a number of limitations on the ownership of firearms that have been deemed constitutional. Second of all, " If your owning of a gun puts other individual's right to life in danger you should not be allowed to own a gun, and individuals carrying guns they do not know how to use puts other people in danger.". The right to life is the single most fundamental human right there is and should be protected as such. If an individual is not fit to carry a firearm, they are putting the most fundamental human right of others at risk. This is the same reason we don't allow convicted violent felons to carry firearms. Do you contest that also?

Additionally, as the Supreme Court has stated, with rights, come responsibilities. The responsibility of all gun owners is to ensure that they are capable of carrying the weapon and that they are using it safely. If they are not willing to uphold that responsibility, they void their right to carry a weapon.


No no sweetheart, it isn't limited to just "violent felons"



I'm sorry, you're thought process doesn't fit with the current views of the government, you are hereby banned from all rights.
27705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / TX
Offline
Posted 9/20/15 , edited 9/20/15

sundin13 wrote:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11834986

"A disproportionately high number of 5-14 year olds died from suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths in states and regions where guns were more prevalent."


So it's the gun fault some kid that can't handle life commits suicide? Have the schools, parents drill it into their heads that life is not easy to commit suicide is a cowards way out.

Homicide-the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder
"he was charged with homicide"
synonyms:
murder, killing, slaughter, butchery, massacre, assassination, execution, extermination, patricide, matricide, infanticide, slaying
oxford meaning
A person who wants to kill will use whatever to do the deed. I prefer to allow good people to have a chance to fight back. Teaching kids to be responsible around guns is up to the parents.


Just because a "non-criminal" has a gun doesn't necessarily make them better off...


Tell that to people who have used guns to prevent crime. A simple search will reveal a wealth of information to see why gun control doesn't change anything. Have you ever heard of the Luby massacre? This is what happens when law abiding people follow gun control laws.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU1epyZGUAo
13131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/20/15

VZ68 wrote:
No no sweetheart, it isn't limited to just "violent felons"

I'm sorry, you're thought process doesn't fit with the current views of the government, you are hereby banned from all rights.


I never said it was limited to just violent felons.

As for the rest of your post, theres absolutely nothing there. Its absent of anything resembling a coherent argument and is instead jammed packed with fallacies (false equivalency and slippery slope) and nonsense. This is exactly what I meant when I said "I have yet to receive any good arguments against these policies".
10595 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Rabbit Horse
Offline
Posted 9/20/15

neugenx wrote:

I think all adults deserve the right to own firearms if they legally prove themselves worthy of that right. This means simply that I believe if you have any felonious marks on your criminal history you have forfeited that right. If you have any mental/emotional "deficiencies" on your medical record you have forfeited that right due to no fault of your own. Finally, I think the 3rd obligation should be random spot-checks on housing/safety of the weapons. Too many children find a loaded gun sitting in reach and either shoot themselves, a family member or a friend due to their parents neglect of the weapon. There should be strict laws on the safe keeping of the weapons inside any home where children/teens either reside of routinely visit.

Now, as to illegal handguns and weapons, it's actually quite simple. We need stricter penalties for those caught with unlicensed/unregistered weapons. The penalties we have now just aren't strict enough.


agreed, but I'd go further: people with a history of mental disorder or suicidal tendencies should not be allowed to purchase guns, period.
currently, the law is a joke, and might very well explain some of the school shooting that happened in the US.
"Under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a dealer may transfer a firearm to a prospective purchaser as soon as he or she passes a background check. If the FBI is unable to complete a background check within three business days, the dealer may complete the transfer by default." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/11/1261858/-Firearms-Law-and-Policy-Purchase-a-Gun-How-Long-is-the-Wait-And-Why
they should require the person to pass the background check (including history of mental disorder/etc) before allowing him or her to own a gun.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 9/20/15

sundin13 wrote:


VZ68 wrote:
No no sweetheart, it isn't limited to just "violent felons"

I'm sorry, you're thought process doesn't fit with the current views of the government, you are hereby banned from all rights.


I never said it was limited to just violent felons.

As for the rest of your post, theres absolutely nothing there. Its absent of anything resembling a coherent argument and is instead jammed packed with fallacies (false equivalency and slippery slope) and nonsense. This is exactly what I meant when I said "I have yet to receive any good arguments against these policies".


This is the same reason we don't allow convicted violent felons to carry firearms.

It's not a slippery slope, it is a fact. Never give up a single inch of your rights. Because some weak-willed person will always be there to chip away at them.
13131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/20/15 , edited 9/20/15

J-POP187 wrote:

So it's the gun fault some kid that can't handle life commits suicide? Have the schools, parents drill it into their heads that life is not easy to commit suicide is a cowards way out.

Homicide-the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder
"he was charged with homicide"
synonyms:
murder, killing, slaughter, butchery, massacre, assassination, execution, extermination, patricide, matricide, infanticide, slaying
oxford meaning
A person who wants to kill will use whatever to do the deed. I prefer to allow good people to have a chance to fight back. Teaching kids to be responsible around guns is up to the parents.

Tell that to people who have used guns to prevent crime. A simple search will reveal a wealth of information to see why gun control doesn't change anything. Have you ever heard of the Luby massacre? This is what happens when law abiding people follow gun control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU1epyZGUAo


-No, I'm not blaming the gun. I'm blaming the people who don't exercise proper gun safety. If you have kids, your firearm should be locked away in a gun safe or other protected enclosure to ensure that they do not have access to it. This is why I am advocating for mandatory safety and proficiency testing/training.

-You are conflating "homicide" and "first degree murder" and even then I would disagree to some extent with your post. First of all, not all homicides are premeditated. There are plenty of instances in which someone lost their temper during a fight and pulled out a gun. If that gun wasn't there, would the other individual be dead? In many cases, the answer to that is likely "no". There would be a scruff and a fight and someone may be sent to the hospital, but fatal injuries are less likely if the individuals aren't carrying a gun. Second, there are many times when a person would have significantly more difficultly committing a murder without a gun than with a gun. Guns undeniably make the killing of other individuals significantly easier, so attempted murder without guns is much more likely to stay as attempted murder and not first degree murder.

-Again, while there are certainly cases of individuals protecting themselves with guns, there are also plenty of cases where someone tried to protect themselves and ended up killing someone who was innocent and even more accidental deaths due to improper handling and treatment of guns. Again, this is why I advocate for ensuring that the individuals carrying guns are capable of using them while putting other individuals in the area in as little risk as possible.

-The evidence that gun control increases violent crime rates is extremely shaky at best (and again, ensuring that gun owners can use their guns correctly if necessary will only help), with higher rates of violent crime per capita in cities that don't require gun permits and evidence that "right to carry" gun laws are linked with an increase in violent crime. The idea that gun control will increase crime and victimization simply isn't supported by the evidence and it really seems like a moot point at best. And again, mandatory safety and proficiency training will not take guns out of the hands of anyone capable of using them to protect themselves.


VZ68 wrote:

This is the same reason we don't allow convicted violent felons to carry firearms.

It's not a slippery slope, it is a fact. Never give up a single inch of your rights. Because some weak-willed person will always be there to chip away at them.


A=B
Does this mean that A cannot also equal C?
No.

Violent felons are not allowed to carry firearms.
Does mean that every other demographic is allowed to carry firearms.
No.

Anyways, it is a slippery slope fallacy. You cannot prove by any means that mandatory proficiency and safety training/testing will directly lead to the removal of the right to think freely. That is simply bullshit my friend.

I guess I'll ask you again: Should we allow individuals convicted of violent felonies to possess firearms?
Posted 9/20/15
We stigmatize people with guns where I live. Our criminals have a very low opinion of people with guns, too.

How they handle things in the U.S., though, or don't handle things, is really not my business. But I don't like to have conversations with Americans anymore. I used to, but not anymore. Because they talk about the same old things and use the same old arguments, over and over again, like they did 20 years ago. It's a terribly conservative nation. Terribly boring. Nothing new to be learned from over there. They make some good blockbuster movies, though. And their politics is filled with comedy gold. I'll give them that
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 9/20/15 , edited 9/20/15

namealreadytaken wrote:


neugenx wrote:

I think all adults deserve the right to own firearms if they legally prove themselves worthy of that right. This means simply that I believe if you have any felonious marks on your criminal history you have forfeited that right. If you have any mental/emotional "deficiencies" on your medical record you have forfeited that right due to no fault of your own. Finally, I think the 3rd obligation should be random spot-checks on housing/safety of the weapons. Too many children find a loaded gun sitting in reach and either shoot themselves, a family member or a friend due to their parents neglect of the weapon. There should be strict laws on the safe keeping of the weapons inside any home where children/teens either reside of routinely visit.

Now, as to illegal handguns and weapons, it's actually quite simple. We need stricter penalties for those caught with unlicensed/unregistered weapons. The penalties we have now just aren't strict enough.


agreed, but I'd go further: people with a history of mental disorder or suicidal tendencies should not be allowed to purchase guns, period.
currently, the law is a joke, and might very well explain some of the school shooting that happened in the US.
"Under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a dealer may transfer a firearm to a prospective purchaser as soon as he or she passes a background check. If the FBI is unable to complete a background check within three business days, the dealer may complete the transfer by default." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/11/1261858/-Firearms-Law-and-Policy-Purchase-a-Gun-How-Long-is-the-Wait-And-Why
they should require the person to pass the background check (including history of mental disorder/etc) before allowing him or her to own a gun.


So have you filled out a form 4473 lately?

Let's take a look at the very top of a 4473, what does it say?

It's says "Lie on this fucking form, and you'll get 10 years and a fine of $250,000" Holy shit! Better not lie on this fucking form. What are the questions on this fucking form?

Oh shit, not only does it have *massive triggerwarnings* a spot for you to fill out MALE or FEMALE and your RACE and ETHNICITY (Otherkin is not chooseable, shit!)

It asks questions like:

if you are buying this gun for you (prevent straw buys)

Are you a felon

On the run as a felon

Drug user/abuser

Ever been locked up in a mental ward or deemed mad as a hatter

Are you under a restraining order?

are you an ILLEGAL ALIEN? (Fuckin' Greys buyin' my Gats)

etc etc.

So instead of new laws that don't do dick, how about we just look at this 4473 and, you know, follow the ones already on the books?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.